Posted on 10/18/2005 9:49:08 AM PDT by holeinchilada
I figure I'm about 25 degrees to the right of political center in America. Nonetheless, there's one rightwing issue which I wish I'd never heard of, which is the idea of "Right to Life". That, as far as I can tell, is the one basic issue which has kept the criminal democrat party alive over the last 35 years, and it's the one major issue which democrats come anywhere close to being on the right side of.
Not that most abortions should be happening. They shouldn't be. If the people who care about this issue were to put half the time, money, and energy into convincing people not to have abortions which they put into trying to pass draconian laws, the democrat party would die and 90% of the abortion business would probably evaporate.
90 Percent of abortions are basically unnecessary; nonetheless, the ones which are necessary tend to be REAL necessary.
The problem is that the whole idea of there being any such thing as a right to life involves a fundamental logical contradiction and the question of rape brings the contradiction into sharp focus.
What you're really talking about is the question of there being such a thing as a right to life which is sufficient to compell hardship and suffering on another person. In the case of rape, there's no justifying it.
Nonetheless, the law makes no distinction between born persons on the basis of how they were conceived and logically it's hard to picture there being such a distinction amongst the unform. In other words, if ANY unforn could be construed as having a right to life sufficient to compell the mother to carry it to term despite any claims she might have to the use of her own body, then you'd figure the unforn child of the rapist would have the same right.
That's the basic problem.
An article linked from Drudge recently noted that there were something like 94,635 rapes in America in 2004. In other words, the situation which highlights the problem isn't just hypothetical.
Moreover, there have been recent studies which indicate that rape itself is basically a biologically ingrained genetic survival mechanism, and not just some sort of a psychotic crime:
Answers in Genesis Interview with Craig Palmer
Rape is not, typically, the crime of male domination it has been portrayed as by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New Mexico biology professor.Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with strong roots in human evolution.
Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a form of male reproductive behavior."
That study and others like it raise the startling possibility that by bearing a child for the benefit of a rapist, a woman encourages rapists generally and helps cause other girls and women to get raped.
The only logical conclusion I can come to from all this is that the drive for draconian abortion laws needs to be abandoned, and the effort put into peacefully convincing people not to have abortions. It's one of those areas in life in which the unintended consequences outweight anything positive you might hope to accomplish.
“That, as far as I can tell, is the one basic issue which has kept the criminal democrat party alive over the last 35 years”
You could just as easily surmise that it has helped the Republicans. Many Christian, and other socially conservative groups, are to the left on economic issues (you can see that even here on FreeRepublic). Without abortion and other social issues these people would drift over to the Democrats.
The times when people commit abomination is a perfect time to point out that religions condemn abomination. If you know that there is such a thing as "abomination," you know that those acts are violations of more than laws or tradition.
According to your rules, no one could quote laws when crime occurs.
"In other words, if ANY unforn could be construed as having a right to life sufficient to compell the mother to carry it to term despite any claims she might have to the use of her own body, then you'd figure the unforn child of the rapist would have the same right.
"That's the basic problem."
Maybe for most people, but not for me. In the strictest sense, I don't believe any innocent (and that's what they are, regardless of conception status) fetus should be killed. I may be more sympathetic to the rape/incest argument, but it still doesn't negate the fact that the baby is innocent and is its own being.
The problem is not that we have "draconian abortion laws" but extremely liberal ones. For instance, most schools must get permission to give aspirin to children but not abortions. Parental notification is not a right, but the parents are responsible and sometimes have to pay for the abortion done outside their knowledge.
The law is so liberal that an adult woman can get an abortion for any reason, even a hangnail or a bad hair day. That's where the law is.
It got even more liberal under the Clinton administration, by legalizing killing a child halfway outside the mother. This was excluded under the original "ROE VS WADE" U.S. Supreme Court case. So you clearly see that the laws have not become more draconian, but more liberal.
But the ultimate problem is disobedience to God. God considers all life sacred, stating "Thou shalt not Kill (murder). You cannot deny that abortions are taking place because of inconvenience in this society and God will take vengeance on the shedding of innocent blood. If you say they are not innocent because they are not human beings, I argue that you should try to argue this with any 5 year old child.
Moses rightly said, choose life. The liberals are choosing death. Who will save you, the Liberals or the Lord Jesus Christ?
And incidentally, I do quite believe the arguments that rape is truly a sex crime, not a "power" crime. That latter is BS, otherwise there would be no need for rod-in-hole; the man could just beat the #!%@#! out of the woman for power and violence's sake.
No objections to your answer. However, it must be put on the table as a necessary part, for attempting to do it separately [with uncertain outcome] would take way too much time and effort.
A large body of common and formal law and most religious traditions have upheld the logic that each person has the right to protect his or her own life. Look up "doctrine of double effect."
The child is innocent, but the mother is, also. There is no good in allowing the death of both.
You're an idiot. Rapists are out for dominance and sexual pleasure, not to impregnate anyone to pass on their rapist genes due to uncontrollabe evoutionary drives.
SD
If the birth is likely to kill the mother, one can reasonably assume that a life will be lost either way. In this case, who is to say it has to be one over the other? Answer me that...
Please don't be sexist. Women rape, too, albeit not as often as men do.
And when women commit rape, how often does the innocent victim become pregnant?
The solution for rape is to punish rapists.
Gosh - what a novel concept ! Severe punishment usually deters the "casual" offender, and very little deters the truly criminal except a long jail sentence or a box 6 feet under.
No1 THINKS that way, of course. (Are you thinking "I want to have a kid and spread my genetics" whenever you get the urge?) But it's perfectly logical, actually. The "sexual pleasure" part is probably correct, the "dominance" not - and they are not mutually inclusive.
I do believe a look at stats will show that not much more occurs than rape itself in these crimes. I recall watching a show (well, only part of it; happened upon it when flipping channels) talking about this debunking the idea that rape is all about "power" and "violence". But apparently many times nothing more than the rape and maybe a few bruises occurs. That indicates the person wants SEX, not violence.
As I stated above, if the criminal were interested in violence and domination, he'd really only be interested in beating her up and chaining her up and so on (sure, he might use her for some "fun", but why are crimes divided between "assault/battery" and "rape", after all?). He wouldn't have to use his member. If he's really angry, etc, the satisfaction is from beating the snot out of some1.
I have a hard time with the concept of women raping anyone. Sexually abusing, yes, but rape ? I have always thought of rape as something males do to others(male or female), and sexual abuse as something either sex can perpetrate.
In that situation, I'd say the mother. Why? Because she has been in the world and has had many effects on many people already, whose lives would be changed by her disappearing. She has parents and possibly friends, boyfriend/husband, siblings who all depend on her.
Following was the main point of the post:
"What if the 'fetus' of the raped child is the person who cures cancer?"
That has nothing to do w/believing in any god or not. It is indeed a very real possibility. It is all up to chance, at the very least.
You're teetering on the edge of idiocy as well.
I do believe a look at stats will show that not much more occurs than rape itself in these crimes. I recall watching a show (well, only part of it; happened upon it when flipping channels) talking about this debunking the idea that rape is all about "power" and "violence". But apparently many times nothing more than the rape and maybe a few bruises occurs. That indicates the person wants SEX, not violence.
So you're a woman (that's what your profile says) and you don't think there's something inherently violent about a man forcing himself upon and inside of a woman? Yes, sex is a motivator, but men want sex all the time, but few resort to using superior physical strength or other threats of violence or actual violence to get it.
As I stated above, if the criminal were interested in violence and domination, he'd really only be interested in beating her up and chaining her up and so on (sure, he might use her for some "fun", but why are crimes divided between "assault/battery" and "rape", after all?).
Go back and think about this some more. No one is saying rape is purely a violence thing. Of course there's a sexual element to it. But there is also a vioence element. That's what makes it different from just another Friday night out.
SD
Each and every time in the eyes of our courts in regard to child support.
wtf?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.